"To say men are being like women when you want to say they're being cowardly and weak — I don't like it ... Also, some chickification is a good thing. Women have a lot to offer. Think about it."

Sissy says she's been saying it for a while: "postmodern, identity-politics 'feminism'" is not the same thing as "feminization." And that makes me want to remind Rush and everyone else that there are many different manifestations of the feminine. You have something in mind when you say "chickification" or "feminization." I get it. But if you want to be able to criticize the forms of the feminine that you loathe, don't sweep all women into a stereotype. If you do, you are, ironically, acting like a cartoon of a radical feminist — a woman who thinks of men as sexist brutes.

Now, I know that Rush Limbaugh isn't a sexist. I listen to the show. I know he doesn't think women are all alike, and I think he loves women. He's first in line to promote the women who embrace conservatism. That's his thing: He loves conservatism. He's enthusiastic about conservative women in politics and critical of those who try to drag down Sarah Palin (and, for example, Christine O'Donnell). He does the thing that I do: He points it out when a liberal says something about a female conservative that liberals would call sexist if it were said about a female liberal. He notices — as I do — the way liberals expect women to be liberal and discipline us harshly when we are not.

Also, Rush isn't exactly the model of stereotypical masculinity. And I'm not just referring to the fact that he hasn't kept his body in optimum shape over the years. I'm talking about the hours of show time he's spent telling us about the details of his wedding. The times he's admitted getting emotional over some movie. And just yesterday, he went on and on about his pets. He's got 2 dogs and a cat. And the dogs are because of his wife. When he was living alone, he was living alone with a cat. A pussy!

The really annoying part of all these Althouse posts on the supposed travails of women is that women are favored in the U.S. in just about every way you can imagine, from quotas, to having the upper hand in family court to representation on college campuses.

Althouse seems determined to continue to prosecute a war that women long ago won.

The real problem facing us now is how to give our sons an even break, how to restore respect for masculinity and how to return men to their respected role as fathers and husbands.

But Althouse is locked forever in the 60s, partly out of tempermental disposition, but mostly out of self-interest. She was to continue to push her own identity interest because she apparently doesn't feel she's got enough money, power and stuff. That's her perogative.

I don't think Assange looks like a sissy as much as a vampire or some other undead incarnation.

As for the chickification of men today, I see it mostly in the younger crowd with guys who seem to adopt the more feminine fashion; you know the skinny jeans, Jennifer Anistonesque hairdos, listening to Lady Gaga. Sometimes it hard to tell whose who.

Sissy Willis said it all. Women /Chicks have a lot to offer. They are not weaker people than men, the opposite is often true. Women tend to be patient to see whether their emotional input into solving a problem will be accepted. That makes many men presume they have no "experience". But a smart woman gives to the team a high social IQ as well as an intellectual IQ, and generally lets the man take all of the credit.(See, Proverbs 31). The point Rush needs to make is that Assange should not try to fulfill both the male's aggressive role and the female's patient sensitivity role...pick one and stick to it so we can see you. My opinion is that Assange is actually super aggressive, but he uses a passive demeanor to cool down blow-back to his aggressions, just like Barack Obama does.

OK, we have a reasonable dichotomy here. We're all agreed that the feminization of men, much less the demonization of them is a bad idea, but that most men have a gentler side and that's not a bad thing.

PS A lot of people, including Ann, have equated timidity with womanhood (yes, we remember that little video when you were down at Meade's house all by yourself trying to get the insect out of the window. When it buzzed menacingly, you squealed (shreiked?, screamed?) and said, sotto voce, "Oh, I'm such a pussy"). The irony is that America is the one place where that's been historically a misnomer.

There's a little section in "Roughing It" where Mark Twain recalls his fellow passengers on the stagecoach reminding themselves that, during holdups, the women were often more defiant than the men. If American women have given the world a unique stereotype, it's the frontier woman who rides and shoots as well as a man and isn't afraid of anything (God knows, I live with one).

Rush also pontificates on his show on how he evolved the way he did.He averred one time that his vocabulary improved by reading 'Nero Wolfe' novels.He has single handedly returned the word 'gull' to the lexicon.As in, "To deceive or cheat".Not bad for a college dropout.

Damn straight, Utcher:" If American women have given the world a unique stereotype, it's the frontier woman who rides and shoots as well as a man and isn't afraid of anything (God knows, I live with one)."

Hoosier Dad...The women's tees are a rip off. My drive and her drive usually end up next to each other. I get great satisfaction from the ohs and ahs after I hit mine, but no advantage. BUT after that, we are equally equal. The irons distances and putting seems to favor the man because we like to go in straight lines. But in many areas a competitive lady can hit you quicker and smarter many times. That's when we call them a bitch.

For the masculine ideal, I think something along a John Wayne / Clint Eastwood character or any number of other similar archetypes. A slightly more complex one would be like the Tom Hanks characters in "Saving private Ryan" or "The Green Mile".

For the female, I have a hard time not ending up with someone with some masculine characteristics.

Perhaps masculine is just better when thinking of ideals? Any ideal person has to have power, be self sufficient, and capable of physical violence in my mind.

Exactly, Paul, and also to participate in the denial of their own non feminine nature. No one other than a few extreme feminists expect women to deny the goodness of things like nurturing, compassion, or child bearing even though just like masculine traits they can be negative at times.

It's hard for me to deeply process the words of Limbaugh, Palin, and Company because of their tencency to rely heavily on the psychological phenomenon called splitting (splitting the world into two emotional extremes with little to no effort at integration). Splitting is a natural psychological human tendency and often follows a developmental course. That is, as we grow and develop emotionally and cognitively we, hopefully, tend to resist the tendency to split people or groups into 'all bad/evil' vs 'all good/saintly' and attempt to reconcile the good and bad in all of us. For example, marriages or partners who reflexively and continually split, often have very volatile or short lasting and potentially destructive relationships. I tend to get upset when I spend to much time listening to these 'splitters' (those who heavily engage in demonizing and idealizing with little to nothing in-between) no matter their politics. Probably because it activates the tendency to split in me, a proclivity that I struggle to counter every day.

"The real problem facing us now is how to give our sons an even break, how to restore respect for masculinity and how to return men to their respected role as fathers and husbands...."

Oh, bullshit. Do you even read the posts around here? I have 2 sons, and issues in this category have been big with me since long before I started this blog. I'm not even going to bother pointing to the hundreds of posts I've done in this category that you're saying I'm ignoring. You comment a lot here, but do you read this blog?

The Duke in most of his roles is an extreme, as opposed to an ideal. Even more so Eastwood.

Nathan Brittles in "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" or even Kirby Yorke in "Fort Apache" and "Rio Grande" is a little more of an ideal. Also some of the characters played by Henry Fonda or Gregory Peck, a gentleman and a man of principle. You try to live up to an ideal.

As for a feminine ideal, the Kate Beckinsale thing is a joke. That's a comic book character.

A feminine ideal is a lady - compassionate, loving, gentle, moral, but also courageous and intelligent. The women who insisted on law and order, churches and schools when they came to the frontier did as much to win the West as the cowboys and the Indian fighters.

You know, all those tough guy labor unions who could never understand that the world wasn't the same in 1970 as it was in 1930?

So, to Jimmy Hoffa and his comrades, the fight for the right to unionize was eternally the same as it was in the early days of the 1930s.

That the union movement turned into a con job to enrich the leaders never seeped into Hoffa's consciousness. That the unions killed the very businesses they organized with excessive demands was of no importance. The militancy of the movement had to always be maintained because.... well that was habitual for them.

Likewise, Althouse keeps fighting the feminist battle as if 1968 had never ended. It's habitual, and it serves her self-interest. I think the Dylan-nostalgia is part of this. The world cannot be allowed to change. The problems can't be exactly the reverse of what they were in 1968.

So the fact that woman dominate the colleges, are first in line in the quota system and are favored in the family courts just doesn't matter. Continued vigilance in feminist militancy matters.

The fact that masculinity is under attack in the media, in the educational system and in government doesn't matter.

The world must be seen through the prism of 1968 because...

That was when Althouse was young and romantic. And it continues to serve her self-interest.

A complex subject. I think Ann handles Rush well. I used to listen to Rush years ago – but I no longer do. I don’t think any one person or any one ideology has all the answers. We are in a time of fear, uncertainty and crisis and need all the help we can get. Putting more heads together – working together is a feminine quality.

Chauvinism is a belief that men are better than women. And that belief causes harm. You see it at its most extreme with the Taliban. But those who put down feminine qualities are also part of the problem. Which is better – will power or imagination? Which is better – thought or feeling? Which is better – actively seeking understanding or allowing perception?

Chauvinism denigrates women and castrates men. It seeks a singular authority. There must be a pecking order and one person must be in charge. Saddam Hussein is a great example of a chauvinist leader. Chauvinism says that any qualities associated with women are weak and bad – qualities like forgiveness, gratitude, nurturing, gentleness, kindness, love, crying etc etc

Using the word, sissy, is, of course, a put down to women. The Native Americans speak of women as those who hold up half of the sky. That is a more sane view.

I've been meaning to say, the last few times I listened to Rush I noticed he was really getting into that sarcastic lisp of his. Like he was having trouble turning it off...I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a little homophobia going on here.

The requirements of men and women in a relatively safe and easy world like we inhabit today are not very demanding. When I think of the ideals, most of what we have today would not be much use in most of history where leaders were needed, and my ideals always involve leadership or those capable of it when needed.

sunsong:" Putting more heads together – working together is a feminine quality."

Good post sunsong, but I think men have the edge on working together, team work, etc. One of the advantages of Title IX for girls was to expose them to the advantages of team sports.

In general, I think men are better at over-looking personal animosities and getting a job done. I think they see that in the long run it just doesn't matter if this guy you're working with is a douche, as long as the job gets done.

Jay...The outlier concept applies here to mentally ill men and women. If you always pick out an emotionally damaged person, then it may seem to you that outliers are all there is in the female pool. There is a great book called Safe People by Henry Cloud and John Townsend that helped me with these concepts. It is all about relationship boundaries.

Professor...I do remember reading the line about about some chickification being a good thing, yesterday. But I lost sight of who was quoting whom. I should have recognized your masterful writing skills when I saw them. You are one of a kind, and a very good thing.

I just saw Sissy Spacek (whom I love) in Coal Miner's Daughter-did her own signing, tour de force.

She was in another movie with the guy in Coal Miner who was the Moonshiner. I can't remember the name of the movie but it has one of my all time favorite movie scenes ever. The guy also played one of the handymen in Bob Newhard's show but I digress.

The scene that is my most favorite in the movie is where he breaks into Sissy's house, makes her put lipstick on her tits and then asks her to make them bounce-it was truly a tour de force.

In the final analysis, then, your argument is reducible to this: Not ALL women are weak, and Rush should not steretype ALL women together.

That's it? The sole purpose of your critique is that of the 3 billion women on the planet, not all of them are feminine? We didnt need you, or the feminist movement, to teach us that. Everyone knows that words like "everyone" or "always", always have exceptions, often many exceptions. They still remain exceptions.

Bottom line= feminism has ruined the social fabric of all except the religous. It has wrecked our economy too, because our country has turned into an office-based, compliance and regulatory obsessed economy in order to find jobs for millions of women who could not work outside in the field. [again, there's exceptions.] I have an op-ed coming out on this topic soon.

Is the mere use of the word chickification an indication that its user dislikes women? Only if you can say with a straight face that there are no chick traits. Chicks are risk averse. Chicks seek security. Chicks are natural nurturers. Chicks seek common ground and are hostile to outliers. Chicks are almost helplessly swayed by an appeal to compassion. Do all chicks have these traits? No. Ann Coulter has none of them. But for the mostpart these are some of many chick traits. And for the mostpart these are not male traits. So the word chickification is descriptive not prejudicial.

His Kirby Yorke in "Fort Apache" was a man who knew his limitations and that of his men but still followed his orders and did his duty when faced by an unreasonable commander.

Ethan Edwards was a bad man who set himself to do a dirty job who persevered in the face of long odds to complete his task. At the end his humanity won out over his essential hard and cruel nature.

I think the truest sense of who John Wayne really was can be found in the mostly comic character of Sean Thorton in "The Quiet Man." A peaceful man who had lived by his fists, he wants nothing more than to retire with the woman he fell in love with in a little cottage. But he had to stand up for what is right and he did so risking all so that it can all come out right in the end.

The problem with using a word like "sissy" to describe Julian Assange is that there is a perfectly good non-sexist term that already exists which is actually a better word to use anyway. That word is "coward."

It is unfair to associate cowardice with femininity. I believe that association is what offends some women who feel that Rush (and others who use gender-based pejoratives) are essentially stating that cowardice is a feminine thing. That's a completely reasonable response, especially in a culture that clearly values courage and principle regardless of gender.

The unfortunate aspect of this whole line of discussion is that it has distracted us from the criminal behavior of the leakers and publishers of this classified information. Instead we see prominent bloggers like Ann Althouse devoting time and energy to re-engaging the middle school debate about calling someone a "sissy". In essence that entire line of discussion is a win for those who have violated national security and put people's lives and fortunes at risk.

The real John Wayne was a complex man of many contradictions. He loved firey Latin Women who could stand up to him and worked long and hard at his craft. The Duke was never afraid of a strong woman, a partner, someone who gave as good as she got.

Rush isn't exactly the model of stereotypical masculinity. And I'm not just referring to the fact that he hasn't kept his body in optimum shape over the years. I'm talking about the hours of show time he's spent telling us about the details of his wedding. The times he's admitted getting emotional over some movie. And just yesterday, he went on and on about his pets. He's got 2 dogs and a cat. And the dogs are because of his wife. When he was living alone, he was living alone with a cat. A pussy!

This is laugh-out-loud funny! Jesus, Ann, have you spent so much of your life with weak men and gay guys that you really can't recognize the humanity of straight men? My best friend is a super-macho man - a drinker, a brawler, a shit-talker, a sexist pig, and a right-wing fascist conservative - and, since the age of 13, he's also been the most sensitive person I've ever known when it comes to gardening. (He now owns a landscaping business.) Would that confuse you? It didn't ever confuse, or bother, me. Men aren't automatons - why do you think I stay so pissed? Because we don't deserve the image of us feminists are fighting against!

You refuse to acknowledge you believe a lie. You don't understand men. You don't understand us at all. I'm with Shouting Thomas 100%:

The real John Wayne was a complex man of many contradictions. He loved firey Latin Women who could stand up to him and worked long and hard at his craft. The Duke was never afraid of a strong woman, a partner, someone who gave as good as she got.

The "sissy" issue is not denigration of women but of men. Despite (or because of) feminism, women still expect men to uphold some form of chivalty; men don't hit women, men are expected to put themselves in harm's way as a matter of course, men must live with the possibilty of violence in a way that women are not, etc.

Calling a man a sissy mean he's perceived as shirking a man's duty to society as protector and advocate. He's relying on other men to protect him while engaging in passive-agressive behavior.

Women can and do defend themselves and others and are celebrated for doing so; men are EXPECTED to behave this way and are properly castigated when they do not.

Despite (or because of) feminism, women still expect men to uphold some form of chivalty

Well they want both sort of. When a guy shows some emotion they get all teary eyed and think its wonderful. Except when they want him to stop crying like a sissy and act like a man. Which is usually when it comes time to pick up the check for dinner or hold the door open or change a flat tire, or open a mayonaise jar or use tools or....well you see my point.

The sole purpose of your critique is that of the 3 billion women on the planet, not all of them are feminine? We didnt need you, or the feminist movement, to teach us that. Everyone knows that words like "everyone" or "always", always have exceptions, often many exceptions. They still remain exceptions.

I have told them, repeatedly, it's a cheap and petty debating tactic, but these credentialed but not educated people still insist on doing it. if you ask me, they're the very people who get beat up in the ghetto and then claim it happened "for nothing". They don't see what they do, don't care what they do, and when it hits them in the face, they blame others.

The opposite of the ideal male, is the dangerous sissy, best personified by the writer/reporter along with the platoon in "Saving Private Ryan". He was a pacifist and coward. Allowed his best friend in the unit to be killed in a knife fight while he hid a few feet away armed with a rifle. He refused to fight his enemies, and allowed his friends to be killed. In the end, he became a murderer, shooting unarmed Germans out of anger. This is the sissy Assange is. Has nothing to do with women - it's about a dangerous coward.

The knife fight in "Saving Private Ryan" is the most intense death scene in cinema for me. I can never forget it, or it's symbolism concerning pacifism and cowardice.

That's funny, because just yesterday I was explaining the concept of "macking a woman" to my roommate. He wanted to know how pimps got prostitutes standing on the corner to give them money in wintertime, and I explained (pay attention now, Ann:) women WANT to be taken - that's why they get explosively pissed if you seduce them but don't follow through: you have opened them up, prepared them to receive, and then didn't follow through. You have appealed to their true nature - a nature someone like Ann will never cop to in her "women are strong" iconography. Once a man has accomplished that, if that's his goal, a woman will do anything - anything - for him. Including standing in the snow to fuck multiple guys just so she can bring her man money in hopes he'll dein to sufficiently open her up again.

It's not PC but it's true.

BTW - women ought to be glad I'm sick of dealing with them because I'd be a holy terror otherwise:

I was in a smaller super market a few weeks ago and my eyes met with a good looking woman. I went right into my pre-marriage auto-pilot, slipping between the ailes like a falcon swooping on his prey - and she knew it. She was practically waiting for me to come mack her up, and I was driven to lay it on thick as hell - until I got within three feet of her. Then, all of a sudden, I thought of what would come with the average woman in my life - waaay more bullshit than I'm prepared to put up with for even a second - and I just stopped. I asked myself, out loud, "What's wrong with you?" And then I walked away and got in the car, waiting for my friend. I could see her looking for me when she came out of the store, and cussed myself, knowing I had dodged a bullet that I had almost walked into. It still blows me away how natural it was - how I had practically stopped thinking.

bagoh20 wrote:The opposite of the ideal male, is the dangerous sissy, best personified by the writer/reporter along with the platoon in "Saving Private Ryan". He was a pacifist and coward. Allowed his best friend in the unit to be killed in a knife fight while he hid a few feet away armed with a rifle. He refused to fight his enemies, and allowed his friends to be killed. In the end, he became a murderer, shooting unarmed Germans out of anger.

In fairness to Upham he wasn't really a fighting soldier per se who was thrown into a FUBAR situation, and was unable to handle it. He was meant to be the stand in for the audience who watches hell erupt around him.As for him becoming a murderer, think about what happened when he wasn't a murdered. He talked his friends into not killing the captured soldier and that guy turned around and shot Tom Hanks in the heart (though he wasn't the guy who stabbed Mellish).

Good post sunsong, but I think men have the edge on working together, team work, etc. One of the advantages of Title IX for girls was to expose them to the advantages of team sports.

In general, I think men are better at over-looking personal animosities and getting a job done. I think they see that in the long run it just doesn't matter if this guy you're working with is a douche, as long as the job gets done.

Thanks for the feedback. I hear what you’re saying but that’s not what I’m referring to :-) Sports teams or work teams – that kind of working together is better than open hostility for sure. It has value and merit, but it’s not what I’m talking about. the feminine quality of working together is where emotions do matter and the process matters. The *how* something gets done matters as much as *what* gets done. You don’t have to shove your feelings down and go on. You don’t have resemble an automaton :-) It’s not that kind of a team. And there isn’t somebody who is in charge as there is on a sport’s team.

Getting the job done has value. How people treat each other,also has value. In a team based on feminine qualities – if there were antagonisms – they would need to be worked out. In other words – everyone would be held up until those antagonists could find a way to let go of, or move beyond their problems. Being jealous does not make the team better. Being a blamer does not make the team better. Being dishonest doesn’t contribute. Do you see what I mean? The team would find itself stopping all *work* and dealing with the antagonisms because, from that perspective, the work done will be that much better when the team members are clear of emotional baggage or misperceptions of each other.

Anyway, I’m over-simplifying – but I’m sure you get the point. There is value in sports teams and learning to put aside emotion and get something done. And there is value is allowing emotion to really matter and dealing with it. Again, as far as feminine qualities and masculine qualities – one is not better than the other. They are different but equal. My experience is that they work well together. In other words will power and imagination work well together. Thought and feeling work well together. Seeking understanding and allowing perception work well together etc.

Didn't really give anything away, just two short scenes. I will spill the beans on this: The Allies win the war.

Shouldn't there be an alloted time whereby you can give away an ending to a movie and it not be a spoiler? Maybe you can keep the secret for a few months, but if the movie has hit cable and DVD and even network TV I think it's ok to give away the ending.

And just ot be a spoiler I'll mention that Verbal is actually Keizer Soze, and Darth Vader is Luke's father

"He was meant to be the stand in for the audience who watches hell erupt around him."

Not for this audience member - I can't relate to him.

"As for him becoming a murderer, think about what happened when he wasn't a murdered. He talked his friends into not killing the captured soldier and that guy turned around and shot Tom Hanks in the heart "

Which is my point about Assange and much of our modern left. Their fight against those who protect them and cause the deaths of their friends and protectors. Then, later when it's too late, they will act murderously to assuage their guilt. Pacifism and cowardice are not just personal defects they are dangerous and evil.

Even Ryan, at one point, ends up being so overwhelmed with terror that he is simply clutching himself and unable to do anything but scream. And Ryan refused to leave his friends even when he was given a free ticket home. So, while I too wish that Upham was able to get up the stairs and kill that kraut before he stuck a knife in Mellish, sometimes a situation just gets too overwhelming and you literally become paralyzed with fear. Upham, not being battle hardened like his friends simply couldn't handle it.

Upham, not being battle hardened like his friends simply couldn't handle it.

Very few of the guys in the 101st and 82nd who dropped behind the lines were battle hardened. In fact, for the vast majority, that was thier first action. Think about that for a second, you're Allah knows where behind enemy lines, lost and you have no idea if the landings even succeeded.

Upham was designed to be despised and in fact, when you think of it, other than Ryan, the only two who made it were Upham and Riven who wasn't a coward but a jackass.

p.s.. I think to drive home how pathetic Upham was is the fact that the SS trooper who knifes Mellish walks down the stairs and right past an M1 toting Upham as if he wasn't even there.

Good post sunsong, but I think men have the edge on working together, team work, etc. One of the advantages of Title IX for girls was to expose them to the advantages of team sports.

In general, I think men are better at over-looking personal animosities and getting a job done. I think they see that in the long run it just doesn't matter if this guy you're working with is a douche, as long as the job gets done.

Thanks for the feedback. I hear what you’re saying but that’s not what I’m referring to :-) Sports teams or work teams – that kind of working together is better than open hostility for sure. It has value and merit, but it’s not what I’m talking about. The feminine quality of working together is where emotions do matter and the process matters. The *how* something gets done matters as much as *what* gets done. You don’t have to shove your feelings down and go on. You don’t have resemble an automaton :-) It’s not that kind of a team. And there isn’t somebody who is in charge as there is on a sport’s team.

Getting the job done has value. How people treat each other, also has value. In a team based on feminine qualities – if there were antagonisms – they would need to be worked out. In other words – everyone would be held up until those antagonists could find a way to let go of, or move beyond their problems. Being jealous does not make the team better. Being a blamer does not make the team better. Being dishonest doesn’t contribute. Do you see what I mean? The team would find itself stopping all *work* and dealing with the antagonisms because, from that perspective, the work done will be that much better when the team members are clear of emotional baggage or misperceptions of each other.

Anyway, I’m over-simplifying – but I’m sure you get the point. There is value in sports teams and learning to put aside emotion and get something done. And there is value is allowing emotion to really matter and dealing with it. Again, as far as feminine qualities and masculine qualities – one is not better than the other. They are different but equal. My experience is that they work well together. In other words will power and imagination work well together. Thought and feeling work well together. Seeking understanding and allowing perception work well together etc.

But the point remains - to refer to someone as a sissy is a put down to women. It says first, that it is bad and wrong to be a sissy and the reason for that is that sissies are like women and are cowardly.

@edutcher:Back in the 70's I knew a young lady who was 1) wife of a pilot colleague of my father's, 2) a kindergarten teacher, 3) exceptionally cute.About 6 months ago I saw a photo of her that her husband had taken in their retirement house in Montana or Idaho: Casual candid shot in the kitchen & she was still the same petite & cute lady I remembered, with the addition of a ginormous holster on her hip holding what looked like a .44 Magnum revolver. Apparently they have had some problems with local heavy-gauge wildlife :-)That fashion accessory did nothing to diminish her cuteness, of course.That lady should'a been in movies.

Sometimes a situation just gets too overwhelming and you literally become paralyzed with fear.

Never been there. I am compelled to act. Fight or flight - that's all I got. It's been tested a billion times, in a billion different ways, large and small, and - unless it's a survival tactic to stand rabbit still - I'ma take somebody out, somehow, or get the fuck out of there.

What's funny is, it's not who I am but who I've learned to be. I've been attacked so often no one catches a break when the spidey sense starts tingling. I'll hit first - I don't care:

Sunsong, my experience with fellow church ladies (when I used to attend) and also with my two sisters who dislike each other have been brutal. Yes, it is super if you have a hen party with a group of females who are emotionally mature enough to like one another and appreciate each other's varied gifts, etc., but short of quilting bee-type situations, it's rare, I think.

Crack Emcee wrote:"What's funny is, it's not who I am but who I've learned to be. I've been attacked so often no one catches a break when the spidey sense starts tingling. I'll hit first - I don't care: "

Right, it's learned behavior. Which Upham, just being some translator didn't have. At the beginning of the movie when they first meet him Tom Hanks gives him a rifle and he has no idea how to even hold it. He's totally green. They even recognize that by making him the guy that brings the ammo to all the other soldiers at the last battle. He's not actually fighting he's running from building to building giving the REAL soldiers their ammunation so they can fight the Germans.

When you are young you don't have any game so you are out there trying to hook up and failing miserably most of the time.

But with age and experiance you get some game and recognize situations and know how to play them to get things done so to speak.

Now of course your situation has changed. You're married or you are living with someone and you are not the kind of lowlife scumbag who would cheat. But it is right there in front of you. Being a "real" man means walking away from that situation as fast as you can.

As for the chickification of men today, I see it mostly in the younger crowd with guys who seem to adopt the more feminine fashion; you know the skinny jeans, Jennifer Anistonesque hairdos, listening to Lady Gaga. Sometimes it hard to tell whose who.

Sunsong, my experience with fellow church ladies (when I used to attend) and also with my two sisters who dislike each other have been brutal. Yes, it is super if you have a hen party with a group of females who are emotionally mature enough to like one another and appreciate each other's varied gifts, etc., but short of quilting bee-type situations, it's rare, I think.

You deserve better! I don't think it's rare at all. I wouldn't have friends who are emotionally immature :-) What would be the point? Of course, a lot of that comes with age - lol At fifteen or twenty we are all likely to be assholes. At 50, hopefully not.

and Upham was a guy who basically translated and made maps and was thrown in with a bunch of battle hardened rangers. He's simply not going to be as effective. and in extreme FUBAR situations he's probably going to collapse in fear.

The way of the warrior is a learned thing. Whether Upham refused to learn or was a clerk who had no aptitude for fighting is not explained. The way of the weasel seeks to find a way around the needed duty. The way of the warrior attacks because he has learned that the way of the weasel never works out. Both are at risk of being killed, so why not win. The warrior rationally decides that he will win. Warriors can be a pain in the ass when there is nothing to left to win...so they go out looking to start fights. Crack and I do understand one another well.

The fact that Upham froze in fear is the problem, not the justification. He let fear, and maybe ideology, overpower doing the right thing and fighting to save his fellow men. The others were teachers, musicians, etc. Few men grow up as warriors, especially G.I.s

I think bravery while for some may come more natural, is often learned. On a national level, in our leaders, we need to carefully exclude those with no past demonstration of it, whether innate or learned. This includes ideology that does not understand the danger or pacifism in a world of insect politics.

Another point in the movie Upham grabs the wrong helmet. He's completely not used to combat. He probably had basic training where he learned how to handle the rudimentary basics of combat then was sent to a desk job where he assumed he would be for the duration of the war. He wasn't cut out to be a hardened soldier. And they have plenty of scens at the beginning to show how unequiped he was. So while I wish he did get up the stairs and shoot that damn kraut, I understand how he was overcome with fear. His fear was such that he was literally paralyzed with fear and couldn't climb a step. It's not as if he wanted to let Mellish get killed, he just literlay couldn't get his feet to go up the steps.And it is funny, you'd think that considering he has a rifle and the german guy only has a knife that he even has the upper hand. But again he's so paralyzed iwth fear that he can't even take action to protect HIMSELF. And

Another point in the movie Upham grabs the wrong helmet. He's completely not used to combat.

I don't think anyone disagress that was what his character was to portray but that doesn't make it any less palatable. There is the scene on the beach where Hanks is trying to rally guys away from the obstacles and to the shingle and is basically told to f*** off cause its the only protection they have.

I won't discount his lack of combat training but regardless, when one of your comrades is fighting for his life and you're peeing down your leg in the next room and doing nothing, its hard to feel anything but contempt.

And if you watch it again, when the SS troop is coming down the stairs, he's armed with his MP40 again, not his knife. To me his not even acknowledging an armed Upham as he walked out said it all.

It's hard for me to deeply process the words of Limbaugh, Palin, and Company because of their tencency to rely heavily on the psychological phenomenon called splitting (splitting the world into two emotional extremes with little to no effort at integration). Splitting is a natural psychological human tendency and often follows a developmental course. That is, as we grow and develop emotionally and cognitively we, hopefully, tend to resist the tendency to split people or groups into 'all bad/evil' vs 'all good/saintly' and attempt to reconcile the good and bad in all of us. For example, marriages or partners who reflexively and continually split, often have very volatile or short lasting and potentially destructive relationships. I tend to get upset when I spend to much time listening to these 'splitters' (those who heavily engage in demonizing and idealizing with little to nothing in-between) no matter their politics. Probably because it activates the tendency to split in me, a proclivity that I struggle to counter every day.

Very nice. Yes, demonizing and idolizing is a great way to describe it. The extremes are pretty much useless, imo.

Now that narcissism has been proposed to be eliminated from clinical diagnoses, Rush can complain all he wants about someone else (WikiLeaks) getting more attention than Rush and not be characterized by his beloved listeners as a prototypical narcissist.

Clinicians once used Scarlet O'Hare as a prototype to create and identify a syndrome in counseling, that is, the Scarlet O'Hare syndrome which allegedly affects women.

So maybe a new prototypical syndrome, or a dimensional analysis as is the flavor of the day, is in order using Rush, say the "Rush-To-Whine-Syndrome" – jealousy and whining and ad hom over anyone else (say WikiLeaks) who gets inside news first and before any of the rest of the narcissists who miss the opportunity of self promotion.

Maybe a short description: "leak envy."

With it understood that when we hear "leak envy" we first think of Rush, and his little problem.

Here's something I just thought about "macking", while doing something else, that I think is interesting to consider:

That woman at the market was irrelevant to my goals.

Like I said, I was on autopilot - there was nothing she could've said or done (beyond "I'm married") that would've stopped me from macking her up. And it's not just because she wanted me to approach her. My will would've been stronger than hers, though all she would've saw was a charmer with a smile - and maybe not even that. Maybe it's pheromones, or whatever, but it just would've "happened". You know how people say, 'it just happened"? Well it's true, but somebody's got to be in that headspace to make it so. I was there.

Oh, puleeze, we've achieved our goals, women have reached gender parity under the law, and in many professions and aspects of life; exceeded our expectations. We control the asset base and are the gender majority, so give the PC parsing and nagging a rest.

Hoosier Daddy wrote:And if you watch it again, when the SS troop is coming down the stairs, he's armed with his MP40 again, not his knife. To me his not even acknowledging an armed Upham as he walked out said it all.

Yeah, he knows that Upham is harmless and not even worth a crack to the head with his rifle. And Upham literally is so terrified that he's letting this German who just killed his friend potentially kill him too. I don't hold him in contempt, I feel bad for him. He's going to have to live with the fact that due to his inaction he let his friend get murdered, but I don't think of him as cowardly in the sense that he didn't want to act and cared more about himself than his brothers. He just couldn't act. His body physically failed him.

Speak for yourself. I haven't reached my goals. No need to be arrogant and clueless with your assumptions.

And yes my view is that using the word *sissy* as a putdown includes a putdown to women. The word, *sissy* apparently comes from the word sister. It *assumes* that women are cowardly and that being effeminate is cowardly. I am not bothered that you and I disagree.

crack and troop -- If you're deft enough, macking can stop at flirtation, which leaves both parties feeling energized without committing to anything outside the moment at the store. If somebody you think is attractive lets on they think you're attractive, that can make your day.

This post of Sissy's made me think about boy terrorist Mohamed Osmun Mohamud. As far as macho looks go, he is the anti-Sean Connery. Perhaps he pursued the bomb plot to show his masculinity -- bagoh's definition of power, self-sufficiency*, and physical violence.

*Although he didn't make his own bomb, we don't see John Wayne making his own firearms or ammo, either. (Don't remember seeing him load caplocks or flintlocks.)

And if you watch it again, when the SS troop is coming down the stairs, he's armed with his MP40 again, not his knife. To me his not even acknowledging an armed Upham as he walked out said it all.

That, to me, was an idiotic scene. Why would a battle-hardened member of the SS leave a living, armed American soldier at his back? Even if he thought that Upham was a complete coward that still makes no sense.

edutcher,There's a little section in "Roughing It" where Mark Twain recalls his fellow passengers on the stagecoach reminding themselves that, during holdups, the women were often more defiant than the men.

That's because they were much less likely to be killed for their defiance.

IOW,even in the Wild West women were able to shoot off their mouths, without fear of serious consequence.

crack and troop -- If you're deft enough, macking can stop at flirtation, which leaves both parties feeling energized without committing to anything,...

That's not macking, it's flirting. Macking is controlling a woman's mind, not a friendly give-and-take. No woman's going to sell pussy in the snow because you made her smile. That desire, to be friends and/or thought of as a "nice guy", is why there ain't no white pimps:

"That's not macking, it's flirting. Macking is controlling a woman's mind, not a friendly give-and-take. No woman's going to sell pussy in the snow because you made her smile. That desire, to be friends and/or thought of as a "nice guy", is why there ain't no white pimps:

No game."

Das cold yo.

Look you don't have to be Ike Turner to turn out some bitches. A judicious dispersing of an occasional eight ball will work just as well. At least it did in the 1980's.

The men in my family were soft-spoken, domestic, friendly to strangers, loyal to their wives, and worked hard for their families. None of them were macho, so I never learned it.

@Trooper York:

I liked that bit about the movies. I'd like to see what movies other commenters are living. Honesty compels me to admit that characterwise I'm Walter in The Big Lebowski. Walter has his moments but on the whole he's not someone I'd set out to emulate. I'll need to work on that.

mariner wrote:"When women stop describing things they don't like as "testosterone-driven" or somesuch, then I'll take this seriously."

Thats a good point. Everyone knows that there are things called chick flicks (usually with Cameron Diaz in them) which appeal to women's sentiment, and then there are dudes flicks, which appeal to the mens. And the chick flicks are usually about some girl with a disease who finds the one man who sees through her flaws to her own inner beauty and sacrifices everything for his undying love. And then there are the guy flicks where shit blows up.Maybe a good separator between a sissy male and a non sissy male is how they respond to chick flicks.If the thought of going to see a Cameron Diaz movie makes you happy, or you are going to it willingly and not dragged by your gf, you are probably a sissy man.This is not an absolute truth, in that occasionally there are some good chick flicks and some guy movies just suck, and some guy movies are actually chick flicks but tailored to guys (like Brian's song, or the Bucket List) but they usually aren't as maudlin as the chick flicks. But generally, if you go to chick flicks you're a sissy. If you watch Lifetime or Bravo you are a sissy (I'll make an exception for Top Chef because it's not as gay as some of the other programming).

They don't make movies about guys like me. I'm a bit of Jeffrey Wright in Basquait, Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction, Morgan Freeman in 7, Robert Townsend in Hollywood Shuffle, and Ice Cube in Friday, but I actually look more-than-a-little like Lou Rawls.

I think "chickification" is more a reference to feeling instead of thinking. Oh and not all women lead with their feelings but I'd bet more do than men. I work at a place with 95% women and yes I do get asked to move the furniture around a lot.

The movie I'm living is "The Blair Witch Project." I'm surrounded by amateurs screaming as they wander about in the wilderness. At the end, I kill them all, and make millions, and the whole thing is bullshit.

When I was an undergrad I worked at Pizza Hut. My name tag said "Mr Pink", because I was the only one there who was a goddamned professional. I thought. The rest of the drivers thought it would be cool to have name tags from "Reservoir Dogs" but it ended up with five guys arguing over who got to be Mr Black, and that was the end of that.